I have, um, "interesting" political conversations with friends and coworkers, because around here there are very few libertarian leaning people. I'm either back and forth with Democrats on spending and taxes, or I'm back and forth with republicans on defense.

Now, my view is that we need to bring our forces back within our borders. I confess that I can't find an exact number of how many bases we have on foreign soil (that we know about), but the numbers I've seen are anywhere from 100 to 700(lol?).

I would like to ignore, for now, Iraq and Afghanistan, except perhaps in how they affect reduction in troops in bases not directly involved with those conflicts. For example, we can't bring troops in from "x" country because logistically they make it cheaper for us to continue in Afghanistan.

The reasons I'm given as to why we can't bring troops home from overseas bases:

1) We have to have a world-wide presence in order to keep our interests and allies safer.

2) Countries PREFER that we have bases in their countries, because we provide them with security and support.

3) These bases are not a complete loss, as they do have some revenue potential (that I must not be aware of).

4) The costs to shut down these bases and bring everybody and everyone home, not counting the land that we'd be forking back over to each respective country.

5) Bringing this many service men and women home would cause even more economic trouble, and drive unemployment higher.

6) Stuff I can't think of right now, but may add later.


Now, I'll be honest. I don't agree with any of these positions. BUT, I'm willing to listen. Of those that agree that we do not spend too much on our military and that our presence overseas is a net positive, what is your reasoning behind this? I'd like to have this discussion with people who can adequately argue their position without relying on, "Because I said so."

Also, is decreasing military spending out of the question? If not, how much?

The only positive you seem to have is that we might save money yet admit you can't prove it. What is there to refute?

No no no. I'm AGAINST overseas bases. These are the reasons people have given me in the past as to why we should keep our bases overseas.

You misunderstood me, I am pro overseas bases. My post was that you haven't provided a reason to leave them. EDIT: I don't see why justification is required for the obvious benefits unless a good reason can be shown otherwise.

Money? Goes back to my conversations with the Republicans I know. We agree on cutting spending and cutting taxes, but when I mention a reduction in military spending....

"ARE YOU CRAZY?"

I just don't get it. When you have a runaway economy, it's ALL fair game.

Ok, now that I understand where you're coming from, do you think that if we shut down our overseas bases, we wouldn't save any money?

I don't know for sure but it seems likely we would save money. Now is it enough to warrant the removal? I would need to see the calculations to offer an opinion. Here is an example, if it saved a billion dollars a year I'd say no way, if it saved a trillion I'd say yes for sure so somewhere between those two numbers is the Hmmm number, where I need to consider whether it makes sense or not.

That's a perfectly reasonable answer that I would agree with. I wouldn't care to even fool with it if it wouldn't save a reasonable amount of money. Now I wonder where I'd find semi-accurate numbers on estimated costs? I've heard figures thrown around, but after a fair amount of looking, I haven't found anything even semi-reliable with which to proceed.

Ron Paul estimates the cost to "maintain the empire" at 1T/year. He's said that you could save 500-600 B a year by bringing the troops home. (Not to mention the money you gain by having the troops spend their money at home)

Sorry I don't have any harder numbers.

Is the rational for overseas military installations based only on cost? Not including diplomatic embassy's and their security details, unless there are American assets that specifically require an armed escort, foreign operations will always be a financial drain. And there is a difference between an American asset and a business asset. The only purpose a garrison can produce is to inflame the indigenous population. Take your hometown or campus. Place an armed militia that answers only to some distant power. Would you feel safe or imprisoned?

I believe we currently have 761 overseas military bases.

As for the countries "wanting" us there, yes, we typically try to install friendly puppet governments in our client states. Also, American military bases are simultaneously bribes and threats. They provide large influxes into the local economies (transfered from the American taxpayer), and are very visible local jobs programs.

To anyone who is in favor of overseas bases-

How would you feel if China had troops down the street from you? How would you feel if they were there to "protect you?"

If they were really there to protect me I would not have a problem with it.

I'm sure the south koreans don't have a problem with it ????

The cubans might but we don't have to worry about that anymore do we !!!!

I must answer your question with a question. Where do we currently have bases overseas that we have been asked to leave by the government in power?

tons of countries (i.e. all of them) don't have the extensive empire we have. are all of those countries getting attacked constantly?

lol. again, how would you feel if China had armies in our country?

i'd love to see any statistics showing that these bases are somehow making us money.

lol this is so ridiculous.

unemployment isn't the issue. production is the issue. just as unemployed workers are failing to produce anything of worth, so are soldiers sitting in germany "keeping the peace". furthermore, we have to pay their salaries out of the taxpayers pocket, thus hurting the citizen more.